Monday, September 09, 2013

No Wonder the EPA is Illegally Hiding Its Temperature Data

If the radical Leftists controlling the Democrat Party had even an iota of evidence suggesting the validity of global warming, they would be clamoring to make public its data. Instead, they are unlawfully concealing the data, violating Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests and other demands.

It would seem to be common sense for the data used in a study that guides public policy and the writing of federal regulations to be publicly available. That’s not the case when it comes to EPA and air pollution data.

During their pursuit of regulations that would cost businesses billions of dollars, EPA officials have refused to reveal the data used to support these proposals – not to White House officials, not to Congress, not to leading environmental experts, and not to the American people. The data sets have not been analyzed by independent scientists or gone through a peer-review process, and, yet, these findings are being used to justify onerous regulations.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science Committee, sent six letters to EPA asking for the data. In 2011, current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy promised to do so, but never delivered it. Rep. Smith subpoenaed the agency on August 1.

“You did not provide the Committee with anything new,” Smith wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. Instead, Smith wrote, the agency responded to his 1 August subpoena by providing “a file of already public information along with a letter outlining excuses for why EPA did not comply.”

EPA is using the subpoenaed data to support regulations that could cost the American people trillions of dollars. Yet the agency has refused to make the data available to Congress or the American people. Regulations based on secret data have no place in a democracy.

You remember the IPCC, right? It’s the group whose 2007 report on global warming said that snow would disappear from everywhere but the highest mountains, icebergs would melt, sea levels would rise, deserts would spread, people would die in heat waves and pretty much the earth was going to end if we didn’t immediately destroy our carbon-fueled economy with job-killing government regulations.

Well, that’s not happening. In fact, the Arctic ice cap has grown by 60 percent since 2012.

Thanks to the IPCC’s original predictions, billions of dollars were spent on supposed green measures to curb global warming ... Now, either those measures really, really paid off, or the skeptics were right all along.

There are only three reasonable ways to explain a "belief" in global warming. In order of increasing malevolence, they are hubris, greed, and Marxism. And they are not mutually exclusive; see exhibit A: Al Gore.

Anonymous stated "If you choose not to believe climatologists and still believe other scientists, then why?"

Perhaps because these climate "scientists" of which you speak have routinely been caught cherry picking and manipulating their data to fit their preconceived models. They act with arrogance and impunity because they're backed by powerful interests with deep pockets. They "lose" their raw data and only release the "adjusted" data sets and you expect us to believe them?

Show me the carfax!

The saddest part is that even astrologers are more accurate (and probably more ethical)in their forecasts and predictions than climatologists.

The proven decadence and corruption of "climate science" has rendered it the laughing stock of the scientific community, and and embarrassment to true scientists everywhere.

And yet you ask why we choose not to believe them. Eventually even you will not be able to "hide the decline" of people subscribing to your myth and scam.

"If you choose not to believe climatologists and still believe other scientists, then why?" Ah, here's the central point. I do not believe any scientist. I believe provable scientific facts. The thinking here seems to be that because scientists have accomplished such amazing things -- rockets and computers and all that -- there therefore we should blindly believe anything said by anyone who calls himself a scientist. But, umm, the people arrogating this authority to themselves are not the ones who invented rockets and computers and all that. They just call themselves by the same name as those who did, and then demand the respect that those people earned. Sorry, no.

I don't care what any authority says. If you have evidence to back up your claim, then show me the evidence, and I'll believe it because of the evidence, not because you said so. If you don't have evidence to back up your claim, then the fact that some authority said it's so is worth nothing. Either way, I don't care what the authorities say. I care about the evidence.

Accepting the science? Most of the world's truly great scientific discoveries came about because someone didn't just "accept" the prevailing science of the time. Science is an inherently skeptical discipline based on endless questioning and challenging of the assertions and conclusions of those who came before you. Even physics, unless you don't think Einstein and Quantum Physics aren't great leaps in understanding forward from Newtonian physics that required us to challenge those ideas.

As to the notion that world is getting warmer? Well, yes it has been ... ever since the last ice age. Has mankind polluted that far back in history to cause that rise in temperatures? Doubtful. Therefore, any rise in temperature must be attributed to natural climate variations, and what nature causes, she can also reverse.

If the real-world data does not fit your model, do you a) adjust your model to account for the data or b) adjust the data to fit your model? If you chose b) then congratulations! You're a "scientist" according to the Left.